There have likely always been articles such as this one, but I've never seen one before so I found the concept intriguing. And if you know of any alt history novels that address this concept, please let me know.This July 4, let's not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.

But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

Abolition would have come faster without independence

Independence was bad for Native Americans

America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain

Poll to follow.

I used to think it was, but after some more reading, I decided it was necessary.

this speculation isn't critical thinking. it is nothing more than a self motivated political speech. this person who wrote the op actually believes what he is saying is true. you missed the latter by calling it "thinking"! is thinking truth?

Originally Posted by BigLeRoy

mtm1963 is actually thinking that we are going to try to invent a time machine, go back in time, and kill George Washington before Yorktown. Or sumthin' like that.

As an academic I thought you would be aware of what History teachers do...

The don't make up History.

They don't edit history.

They don't second guess history.

They teach history as it happened, unless of course they are a liberal in which case they teach whatever lies suit the agenda.

They also teach the reasons why things happened. Helping to understand the consequences of actions as well as what was avoided/changed/altered when a particular action was taken. This is how you learn from history. Your strategy of teaching straight names and dates is responsible for a lot of the dumbing down of the education system.

As an academic I thought you would be aware of what History teachers do...

The don't make up History.

They don't edit history.

They don't second guess history.

Of course, none of this is true. Every story has a "telling" and history is a story. Historians emphasize different things--they even leave things out. They explain events in different ways and draw different relationships between events and people. The idea that history is an objective study as is science (or even CAN be) is silly.

Listen to an American and a Brit explain the causes and results of the American Revolution. They will both be totally accurate, but they'll tell very different stories. The same is true for pretty much any historical event.

They also teach the reasons why things happened. Helping to understand the consequences of actions as well as what was avoided/changed/altered when a particular action was taken. This is how you learn from history. Your strategy of teaching straight names and dates is responsible for a lot of the dumbing down of the education system.